Page 21 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] INDEX - 1st September, 2020 xix
Penalty (Contd.)
Customs Act, 1962 — Commr of Cus., C. Ex. & S.T., Hyderabad-II v. G.M.K. Products
Pvt. Ltd. (Tri. - Hyd.) .................................. 692
— Improper import of goods - Case against appellant based upon retracted
statements of co-noticees - Statements of co-noticees unless corroborated
in material particulars by independent evidence, do not constitute legal
evidence - No justification for imposition of penalty upon appellant -
Section 112(b)(i) of Customs Act, 1962 — Saurabh Aggarwal v. Commissioner of
Customs, New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) ............................. 676
— on co-accused - Smuggling of Gold - Evidence - Chain of events indicate
that appellant, owner of Security Agency at Air Cargo Complex, was in
constant touch on phone with main accused as well his own security staff
found engaged in removal of smuggled gold from Cargo - Thus his plea
that he did not know main accused has no force looking into duration of
phone calls with main accused - Further, Statements of his employees
squarely bring out his involvement - Plea that these statements were
involuntary and retracted, is not fully established from records -
Impugned order imposing penalty on co-accused sustainable - Section
112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Lieutenant Colonel Ganesan S. (Retd.) v. Commr. of Cus.,
Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ................................. 705
— reduced as evidence of smuggling of gold from Nepal not very strong -
See under GOLD SMUGGLING .......................... 716
Port Load Document is not proper evidence of undervaluation charge - See
under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ......................... 681
Precedent value of Apex Court judgment when same not agreed with by
another Apex Court Bench and matter referred to Larger Bench - See
under IMPORTER ................................. 598
— of stayed orders - In terms of Delhi High Court judgment in 2017 (355)
E.L.T. 189 (Del.), unless and until any order set aside, mere stay against it
by higher forum would not effect its legality — Gravita India Ltd. v. Commr. of
C. Ex. & Central Goods & S.T., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ...................... 714
Pre-deposit - Attachment of disputed premises cannot be considered as pre-
deposit, appeal not maintainable - See under STAY/WAIVER OF PRE-
DEPOSIT ...................................... 690
— Directors of company’s appeal before Tribunal cannot be dismissed for
failure of company to make pre-deposit - See under APPEAL TO
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ............................. 689
— When dispensable/not dispensable - See under STAY .............. 690
Printer - Digital inkjet printer, which is as per catalogue, able to be
connected to a network by LAN TCP/IP Cat. 5E, classifiable under Tariff
Item 8443 32 50 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as Inkjet Printers and not
under Tariff Item 8443 39 10 ibid as Inkjet Machine — Monotech Systems
Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ............. 718
Proceedings under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 quasi-judicial in nature
- See under SUMMONS .............................. 604
Provisional assessment - Import of gold granules from Indonesia -
Certificate of Origin, verification thereof - Release of Bank Guarantee - In

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  21